Fixing the UK's Broken SEND System: Parliament's Debate on Education Reform

UK Parliament recently debated on the crisis in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) support, sparked by a petition with over 122,000 signatures. In this extended episode, Members of Parliament describe an adversarial system that is failing families with long delays, funding gaps, and emotional distress. Key themes include the urgent need for early intervention, increased capacity in schools, and better teacher training. The debate stresses that any reform must protect children's legal rights and help them reach their full potential.

Key Takeaways

• The current SEND system is widely described by MPs as "broken," "adversarial," and in "crisis," causing immense stress for children and their families.
• Parents frequently face long, exhausting legal battles to secure the support their children are entitled to, with tribunals overwhelmingly siding with families against local authorities.
• There is a severe funding crisis, with local authorities facing huge deficits while the costs of private specialist placements are soaring.
• MPs from all parties called for a shift towards early intervention, more specialist school places, and mandatory SEND training for all teachers.
• A major concern is that upcoming government reforms could weaken or remove the crucial legal rights that Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) provide.

Important Definitions and Concepts

• SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities): A legal term for a child who needs extra or different help in school due to a learning difficulty or disability. A formal diagnosis is not required to be identified as having SEND.
• EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan): A legally binding document that outlines the special educational, health, and social care support a child or young person from birth to age 25 requires.

Source: Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
Volume 772: debated on Monday 15 September 2025

Transcript

Amy: 0:00

Thank you.

Ivan: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to The Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today, we're looking into a really pivotal discussion in Parliament. It's about the huge challenges around assessing and supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities send here in the UK. We'll be sort of pulling back the curtain on why the system feels so broken for so many families and looking at the solutions being discussed.

Amy: 0:33

Absolutely. And it's a topic that's clearly generated huge concern right across the country. You just have to look at a recent petition to see the level of public engagement. This isn't, you know, just some abstract policy point. It affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of children and their families every single day.

Ivan: 0:49

That level of engagement is really striking, isn't it? Over 122,000 people signed that petition. E-petition 711021. They were asking directly for better assessments, better support for children with SEND. When you see numbers like that, It's obvious this isn't some niche concern. It's hitting communities everywhere. So for those of us maybe trying to understand this better, what exactly are we talking about when we say send in practical terms?

Amy: 1:15

Well, legally speaking, a child is considered to have special educational needs. If they face a learning difficulty or a disability, that means they need extra help or maybe different help compared to what's typically available in a standard school. We call this special educational provision. It's not always about having a formal diagnosis, although that often plays a part. The real point is whether a child's needs make learning significantly harder for them and whether that extra support is essential for them to actually participate and, you know, make progress. Think things like one-to-one help, maybe smaller classes, specially adapted learning materials, or therapy, speech, and language support is a common one. It's all about making sure every child gets the chance to thrive.

Ivan: 1:54

Right. So it's about that truly tailored support. But the picture painted in Parliament was one of a system under, well, immense pressure, overburdened, under-resourced. Those are the words used. We hear about a funding crisis. What are the actual financial realities here? What's driving this?

Amy: 2:10

The financial strain is really quite acute. Data from reports, including one from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it shows the number of pupils with these education, health and care plans, EHCPs, it's just surged, up by nearly 80% just since 2018. That means it's now affecting over 5% of all pupils in the country.

Ivan: 2:31

80% since 2018. That's not just an increase. That's an explosion.

Amy: 2:35

Exactly. It's a rapid escalation in the system structure, its funding mechanisms. They just weren't designed for this level of demand. And the result, local authorities are facing these huge high needs deficits. They're projected to hit an, well, an eye-watering eight billion pounds by 2027. What makes it worse is the cost disparity. An independent special school place now costs on average more than double a place in a state special school.

Ivan: 2:57

Double the cost.

Amy: 2:58

Yes. And we heard specific examples in parliament. One constituency mentioned a £22,000 per pupil funding shortfall just for providing necessary one-to-one support. And the funding varies wildly across the country. You might get less than £1,000 per child allocated in Staffordshire, but over £3,500 in Camden? It really is, as many described it, a postcode lottery. These aren't just abstract numbers. They show a system bleeding financially, and that has very real consequences.

Ivan: 3:28

A truly staggering financial picture. But let's move beyond the spreadsheets. What does this actually mean? mean for the families, for the children who are living this day in, day out? What's the human cost when these financial problems hit home?

Amy: 3:40

Oh, the impact is just devastating. Families consistently describe it as a constant fight just to get the basic support their children are legally entitled to. They often end up having to take their local authority to a tribunal. And the statistics here are telling. Almost all appeals, an incredible 99 percent in 2022-23 found in the parents' favor.

Ivan: 3:56

99 percent. So it's not about unreasonable demands then?

Amy: 3:59

Not at all. It points to a system consistently failing to meet its legal duty. And meanwhile, the wait for these tribunal hearings can be over a year. Imagine that, a year without the right support for your child. We heard some heartbreaking stories. There was Maeve, a four-year-old in Epsom and Ewell with cerebral palsy. Her family waited nearly a year just for the EHCP assessment, and she started school without any agreed plan in place. Or Luke in Taunton and Wellington, described as a bright young man needing two-to-one transport support. His EHCP wasn't delivered, pushing him towards needing full residential support. residential care, which is obviously a huge human cost and, ironically, a greater financial one, too.

Ivan: 4:37

It sounds utterly exhausting.

Amy: 4:39

It is. This constant battle takes a massive toll on parents' mental health, their relationships, their jobs. A significant figure mentioned was that 62 percent of parent carers for SEND children are not in paid employment. It just becomes all consuming. And the most tragic outcome, children missing education. We heard about one son who hadn't been to school since January, missed his GCSEs, others who lost an entire year of schooling. For many families, the system feels adversarial, confusing, and just completely draining.

Ivan: 5:07

It's incredibly tough to hear those experiences, and it really makes you ask, how do we get here? How do we reach a point where families are forced into these fights, where the system seems stacked against them even when the law is theoretically on their side? Beyond the obvious funding pressures, what are the deeper, maybe systemic issues causing this breakdown?

Amy: 5:25

Well, it seems to be a convergence of several deep-rooted problems. A major one is the lack of early intervention that came up again and again. Needs often escalate quite dramatically because the right support just isn't there early enough. We heard a statistic that only one in five children leave school with their dyslexia identified, for instance.

Ivan: 5:46

Only one in five.

Amy: 5:47

Yes. So when conditions like neurodivergence aren't picked up and supported early on, issues that might have been manageable can become much more complex, needing far more intensive and expensive support later. It's a real domino effect. And this then slams into the problem of capacity and work One specialist school mentioned getting 200 applications for only 20 places.

Ivan: 6:10

200 for 20 places.

Amy: 6:12

Exactly. And there's a severe shortage of crucial professionals, speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists. The people needed to provide that specialized support. Adding to that, in some areas, even the funding to build new special schools has been paused, making the physical space issue worse.

Ivan: 6:30

So not enough professionals, not enough places. Thank you. What about the teachers in mainstream schools?

Amy: 6:39

That's another critical area, teacher training. Many teachers themselves report having very little specialist training in SEND. This leads to a lack of understanding around specific conditions like ADHD or autism. There was a strong call for the idea that every teacher must be a SEND teacher, pushing for mandatory, really comprehensive SEND training for everyone working in schools. Without that base knowledge, good intentions often aren't enough.

Ivan: 7:05

It sounds like the whole culture needs a shift Definitely.

Amy: 7:08

The current system often fosters an adversarial culture. Parents describe feeling pitted against schools, against local authorities. The process feels baffling and unsupportive. The fact that some councils spend huge sums on legal fees fighting families, Kent was mentioned as having spent $1.1 billion, even when almost all appeals go in the family's favor, that highlights a fundamental problem. It erodes trust completely.

Ivan: 7:31

And accountability, if the plans aren't delivered.

Amy: 7:34

That's a huge gap. Accountability gaps are significant. The system focuses heavily on getting the plan written, the statutory part, but there's often very little comeback if the support detailed in that plan just doesn't materialize. We heard worrying accounts of EHCPs potentially being designed around what budget is available rather than the child's actual needs. That's a perverse incentive, isn't it? There was even mention of one local authority allegedly concealing its high level of SEND complaints for over a year. Transparency is clearly an issue.

Ivan: 8:05

And one final point mentioned was profiteering?

Amy: 8:08

Yes, the rise of profiteering is a growing concern. Because state provision is struggling, a gap is opened up, and it's being filled by expensive, private, independent special schools. Some are reportedly backed by hedge funds operating with high profit margins. We heard about single placements costing £166,000 for one school year. It raises a serious question about whether the system's failures are inadvertently creating opportunities for private profit, draining funds that could perhaps strengthen the public system.

Ivan: 8:36

It really does sound like a perfect storm of challenges. Lack of early help, not enough places or staff, training gaps and adversarial culture, accountability issues, and now private companies profiting. It creates an environment where families are just constantly battling. So acknowledging all these deep problems, what's the way forward? What needs to change? What guiding principles emerge from the discussions for reforming the system?

Amy: 9:02

Several key pathways and principles came through strongly. First, and perhaps most was the need for protecting existing legal rights. Families see those rights, especially the EHCPs, as absolutely vital, their necessary tool, their golden ticket to getting any support. There's a real fear that upcoming reforms might try to weaken these rights, which many MPs argued would be disastrous. The government did state the legal right to support will always exist, but how that support is delivered is, of course, crucial.

Ivan: 9:30

So protect the rights. Yeah. What else?

Amy: 9:33

Second, prioritizing early intervention is seen as absolutely vital. Absolutely fundamental. This means things like routine screening for neurodivergent conditions, but also seriously strengthening the support within mainstream schools to stop needs escalating in the first place. The call was for faster, simpler EHCP processes and much more robust support for children under five. Because often, children with SEND are already significantly behind their peers by the time they even start school.

Ivan: 10:01

Makes sense. Catching things early. And within schools themselves.

Amy: 10:06

A big focus on shifting the school culture, creating a more therapeutic and nurturing culture that's genuinely inclusive, fostering a sense of belonging for every child. This goes beyond just teaching. It includes thinking about the physical environment colors, lighting even practical things like school uniforms, which can be challenging for some children with sensory issues. There was also acknowledgement that the intense pressure of exams can cause real stress and anxiety for children with SEND, and maybe we need to rebalance priorities towards well-being and a love of learning, not just performance data.

Ivan: 10:36

And tackling those capacity issues.

Amy: 10:38

Yes. Fourth is boosting capacity and training. That means serious investment in state-run special schools, which tend to be more cost-effective, and also creating more specialist units within mainstream schools so children can stay closer to their communities. Crucially, it also means that standardized national professional development framework for teachers and support staff, including that mandatory in-depth SEND training we talked about, and rebuilding the workforce of therapists and psychologists.

Ivan: 11:04

Okay, right. So early help, score culture, capacity, what about making the system work together better?

Amy: 11:09

That's the fifth point. Enhanced accountability and collaboration. There were calls for local authorities to have a clearer, controlling mind over the whole system in their area. For dedicated special educational needs coordinators, the Sankos and schools to have more actual authority. For clear legal duties instead of vague phrases like best endeavors. Transparency is key too. Ideas like public dashboards showing waiting times and whether provision is actually being The goal is true multi-agency working, maybe a single front door for assessments, moving away from antagonism towards a system where support genuinely wraps around the child and parents are treated as partners.

Ivan: 11:50

That sounds like a truly comprehensive vision for change. Moving from this reactive, often combative system to something proactive, supportive, truly focused on the child. So bringing us right up to date, the government is planning to publish a white paper on SEND reform this autumn. What's the feeling around this? What are the hopes and perhaps the fears?

Amy: 12:08

Well, this white paper is definitely seen as a critical opportunity, a chance to finally fix what's widely acknowledged as a broken system. But at the same time, it's viewed as a potential moment of danger. MPs from across the political spectrum were urging the government very strongly, make sure this white paper tackles the real issues, protect those legal rights, invest in early support and capacity, build inclusion, create real accountability. There's a powerful plea not to go for changes that might just aim to cut legal legal rights or dilute support simply to save money in the short term, the warning is that approach would ultimately fail children and probably cost more in the long run anyway through escalated needs and endless legal fights. The government has confirmed the legal right to support will remain, but as always, the crucial part will be how this white paper actually translates those principles into real effective action on the ground.

Ivan: 13:00

It's certainly clear that while the problems are huge, there's a really strong unified voice coming out a parliament on this. A voice demanding a proper path forward, one that secures that fundamental right to education and support for every single child. The challenges are immense, no doubt, but the potential for positive change is there too, if these principles are genuinely taken on board. The big question hanging in the air now seems to be, not just if reform happens, but whose priorities will shape it. Will it be the voices of families fighting for their children's basic rights? Or will it be the undeniable fiscal problems Take care. Take care.